Evan Harris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	It is first appropriate for the House to offer its thanks to the Queen for her permission to hold this debate. It clearly indicates that, at my request, the Government have been in discussion with Buckingham palace about this matter. Indeed, the Prime Minister has announced that that was the case. I just hope that the discussions concern more than just seeking permission to hold the debate.
	This is a welcome opportunity to debate what most people, if not every right-thinking person, would consider to be the outrageous discrimination in our constitution against Roman Catholics and the equally unfair treatment of women. I come to this not from a religious perspective but one of recognising that whatever someone's religious views—or their views of the royal family—our constitution should not be based on unjustified discrimination.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support on this and on other important matters, and I recognise his contribution to fundamental issues of human rights and freedoms. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to welcome real progress from the Government on this issue. I look forward to hearing the Government's view to determine whether real progress has been made, because the measure of that will be whether we see action in this term. Some 12 years ago, the Labour party's manifesto said that the Labour Government would end unjustified discrimination wherever it existed, and I strongly supported that. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Justice—I am pleased that he is in his place this morning—or the Minister. However, those words and the sincerity behind them are not in the end sufficient when dealing with such discrimination. We need legislation. That is what we are here for, and that is the true power of Parliament.

Evan Harris: I am an expert neither in bringing together the Churches nor in history, but I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is interesting to note that the Bill has brought together a coalition—I was going to say an unholy coalition, but that would be wrong. Some people, on behalf of the Church of England, feel that the Church should not countenance the continuation of this discrimination. Some people, on behalf of Roman Catholics—I hope that we will hear from them later and I shall refer to their views—feel it is wrong that this ongoing discrimination is allowed to continue. And some people—I include myself in this category—come from a more secular, liberal angle, and ask how one single religion can be singled out and picked on for discrimination in a way that is not appropriate in today's world, or indeed yesterday's world.

Evan Harris: My hon. Friend did indeed propose that Bill in 1991, and part of it was implemented voluntarily. I do not seek to speak for the royal family, but I cannot see that the change would cause them a problem. They cannot opt to make the changes themselves, because it requires legislation. It is specifically a matter for Parliament. It need not be a matter for the Executive if they merely get behind this Bill as a vehicle to achieve it. If it were to require Executive action, I am sure that Parliament would want to provide as much as help as possible, because I think that there is a majority in favour of so doing.
	It is appropriate to recognise the significant contributions to this debate that were made before I had the good fortune to come high up in the private Members' Bill ballot. For example, I recognise the work of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who on 8 March 2005 introduced the Royal Marriages (Freedom of Religion) Bill. We see eye to eye on very few issues—perhaps this one and fox hunting are the exceptions—but I have great respect for the consistent position that he has taken on this issue, and for the fact that, although he may not be an enthusiast for everything in the Bill, he was willing to recognise its importance and the fact that it was partly inspired by the action he had taken and to put his name to it as a sponsor. I am grateful to him for being in his place today and for his support as a senior parliamentarian and Catholic.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in February 2007, introduced the succinctly titled Catholics (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill as a ten-minute Bill. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) mentioned the next Conservative Government, but the right hon. Gentleman's Bill showed that even the Conservative party—I do not mean this in a party political way, but one has to remember what the adjective "conservative" can mean—has no problem with this proposal. I believe that we will hear confirmation of that from its Front-Bench spokesman. Indeed, many of the calls for some of the Bill's provisions have come from Conservative Back Benchers, and not necessarily those of a radical persuasion.

Evan Harris: In fact, the extract from Professor Bogdanor's book that I read out implies that he wants that provision to be changed as well, but let me be clear: my Bill would not affect the requirement that the monarch should be not only a Protestant but in communion with the Church of England—although the exact terms of that provision in relation to the Church of Scotland are not entirely clear. There is nothing in the Bill that would affect the establishment of the Church of England. That is a wholly separate debate, and one that I do not intend my Bill to influence or initiate.
	My Bill has no implications for the future of the royal family as our monarchy. I support the monarchy, although I know that that may undermine my credibility in some radical circles. I would not have introduced the Bill if I thought I was wasting my time; there are other causes relating to human rights and discrimination to which I could turn my attention. I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, therefore, in that my Bill does not go as far as he might like, but I think that politics is often the art of what is possible and practical. This limited measure is possible, it is practical and it could be done.

Andrew MacKinlay: I have great affection for the hon. Gentleman and his success, but I hope that he will discuss the long title of his Bill, which refers to the law of succession. The Bill is therefore amendable. If, contrary to his better judgment, he asks me to sit on the Committee that scrutinises the Bill, I shall try to amend it at that stage, so that it allows for the point I just raised.

Evan Harris: I am asked to resist that suggestion. I do not want to get ahead of myself by thinking about the Committee: that is a distant dream at 10 o'clock in the morning on a Friday, discussing a private Member's Bill.
	I shall deal first with the discrimination against women. Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, whom I have had the pleasure and the privilege to meet, is one of the members of the royal family whom I hold in the highest regard for her work and her sense of duty. She is the second-eldest child of the Queen, yet she is tenth in line to the throne. That is not acceptable in this day and age. It does not require her to complain; it is just obvious that that is unacceptable. It is no slight to her younger brothers to say that; it is just wrong that a woman should have to give way.
	To encourage the hon. Member for Ealing, North, I shall cite the words of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, in the 1998 House of Lords debate on his Bill. He is, after all, a Member of the House of Lords and the Government have not seen fit to change his status. He said that his Bill, which is equivalent to mine in this respect,
	"would have no effect on the present Royal Family, making no difference to the status of the Princess Royal, so it could hardly be described as a revolutionary concept. While I am on the subject of the Princess Royal, I would suggest that had she been the first born, this debate would not be taking place in a half empty House of Lords on a Friday afternoon, but in every household in the country. Although I am delighted by the prospect of King Charles III, I am not fearful of Queen Anne II."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 27 February 1998; Vol. 586, c. 909.]
	That is the point, is it not? It simply seems unfair, especially in the light of the historical contribution made by female monarchs. There is no evidence that the present arrangement is in any way justified. I am surprised that the Government have taken so long to deal with the matter.
	I shall deal now with the bar on Catholics marrying into the royal family. That is a specific, singled-out discrimination and the language of the statute on which it is based is offensive to Catholics and, indeed, to people who are offended by other people being offensive. It was a product of its time, but it is not a product of this time. The Prime Minister said this morning that he thought that, in the 21st century, people would not expect those provisions to exist. I think that that is an understatement: such provisions would be surprising in the 20th century or the 19th.
	I have my differences with the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, but at least no one—although some have tried—could accuse me of being a Vatican stooge in proposing the Bill. I can be cleared ab initio of such a charge.

Evan Harris: I do not think that even a referendum on the EU treaty would have 89 per cent. support, unless the  Daily Mail or, say, The Shipley Post, conducted a phone-in poll of a selected sample. I say that in all seriousness, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point. The figures are significant. We are talking about a huge proportion. It is not as though there were a significant number of people who felt strongly that the current rules should be maintained. Indeed, in the same poll, only—I say "only"—76 per cent. of people said that they supported the monarchy, so more people support fairness in the monarchy than support the monarchy. The monarchy would be even more popular, I would argue, if it dealt with those problems, because then they would not be seen as a barrier to supporting the monarchy. The changes are therefore in the interests of the monarchy, and I do not believe—I have no information that makes me certain of this—that the monarchy cannot see that.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. The Government do not need to be defensive about their record, and I am not saying that he is. I and my hon. Friends voted for every one of those measures and, on occasion, urged the Government to go further. There is no difference between us on those proposals. Clearly, their record is better than that of the previous Government, so when he says their record is second to none, I certainly accept that it is better than that of the previous Government and previous Governments, except the Government that included Roy Jenkins. For their time, that Government were possibly more radical. They did not wait for public approval—I am not saying that the present Government did—but that Government did not legislate at a time when public opinion was liberal on homosexuality.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Justice Secretary said in an aside, "Come on Andrew," because he saw my body language indicating dissent. I remind him and the House that when he became Home Secretary, I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Government at the earliest legislative opportunity to alter the law preventing an ordained Catholic man becoming a Member of Parliament. The parliamentary reply, which is on the record, was no. Then the Labour party selected such a man for the constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow. We did the right thing for the wrong reason.

Evan Harris: The hon. Member for Thurrock will indeed have a chance, as I am on the last part of my speech, in which I shall look at the Government's position and pose some questions to the Minister. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is present—I recognise that he is a busy man—and that the Deputy Leader of the House has stayed for the debate.
	I gave the Deputy Leader of the House notice that I intended to quote from his excellent work on constitutional reform. He produced a pamphlet relatively recently called "Powers to the People", in which he identified things that could be improved. I shall quote from it as I know the hon. Gentleman is sincere in his view that these things need to happen. He wrote in that document:
	"The succession to the crown is presently determined by the Act of Settlement 1701, which stipulates that the throne shall pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant descendants according to the principle of male preference primogeniture. This means that the crown passes to the eldest son and his descendants before it would pass to a daughter or her line. Even if the eldest child were a daughter, she would not accede to the throne unless the male line had been exhausted."
	Indeed, we know that daughters are not heirs apparent. They are heirs presumptive, in case there is male issue later.
	The pamphlet continues:
	"Clearly this is unfair—and most other European monarchies—
	Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway are cited, which I would say have a record second to none, compared to our country—
	"have already changed their equivalent acts of succession to provide for absolute primogeniture, so that men and women are guaranteed equality.
	Whilst the UK could only proceed with reform in this with the agreement of other Commonwealth nations who share the monarch, there is a strong argument for reform now, before Prince William or Prince Harry has children. If William's first child were to be a girl and his second a boy, it would be inconceivable that the daughter should not inherit the crown. For that very reason, in Sweden the succession was changed when there was already a male presumptive heir who was replaced in favour of his elder sister."
	The hon. Gentleman goes on to say:
	"The Act of Settlement also requires that any descendant who is or becomes a Roman Catholic, or who marries a Roman Catholic, is barred from the succession."
	He goes on to cite the example of Prince Michael of Kent, and he points out—this was written in 2008—that:
	"In May of this year, Princess Anne's son Peter Philips ... married his Canadian fiancé Autumn Kelly—only after she had converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism in order to secure his place in the pecking order for the succession."
	Even the most proselytising evangelical Protestant would not see that as a particularly efficient way of picking up converts.
	The document continues:
	"The Act also stipulates that the sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England, must swear to preserve the church, and to uphold the Protestant line of succession."
	The hon. Gentleman goes further than my Bill when he states:
	"The government has tended to oppose such moves on the grounds that if there were no bar to a Catholic taking the throne the monarch's role as Governor of the Church of England would be in question. However, several senior members of the Church of England, including the former Archbishop of York, have argued for the repeal of these provisions, at least so as to allow the monarch or heir to the throne to marry a Catholic."
	So we come back to the limited measures in the Bill.
	I cannot understand, which is why I asked the Minister, why the Government have not made more progress on the issue. The Bill states that it is for this Parliament to do so. There is a provision specifying that there must be consultation with the Commonwealth before the measure can have effect. I accept that the wording of the provision may be too wide because it refers to consulting
	"the government of every Commonwealth country",
	whereas only 15 Commonwealth countries need to be consulted. I am prepared to accept that there is an obligation on the Executive to consult those Governments, but I do not think there would be opposition, and there is no veto.
	The Government could use the Bill, and the time that has been reserved for it, to introduce it at the same time as consulting. I do not understand why the Government said overnight that they did not support the Bill, even though they supported the principle behind it and the contents of it. I do not see how they can bring in their own Bill in time. Quaint though our constitution is, it specifies a five-year term for a Government, and that term will end, at least for this Parliament, next June. There is a Report stage day ready and waiting for this Bill. I am not selfish about it. The Government can take it, call it their own, and amend it as required, so that it did not come into force until
	"such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint",
	in order to ensure that everything is done right by the Commonwealth.

Evan Harris: Exactly. Hon. Members have been dealing with the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill through the night. The list of repeals and amendments in that, and in the Coroners and Justice Bill, is massive compared with what is, in angling terms, a tiddler of a Bill—even though its amendments are very important.
	The case it clear. The Bill is a competent vehicle to make the changes and it is the Government's last opportunity in this parliamentary term to achieve what they say they want to do. They have not shown me any barrier to doing it, and I would like to make the Secretary of State an offer. I will have a wager with him: if he is able to make the changes, even without the Bill, in this parliamentary term, I will provide a week's MP's salary to a charity of his choice in Blackburn—and, indeed, to a charity in Dewsbury.

Andrew MacKinlay: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on introducing the Bill, and I support wholeheartedly his comments in favour of it. However, despite what will be said in the Chamber later and what the Prime Minister and the Deputy Leader of the House said on Radio 4, I am absolutely certain that there is no prospect of the Bill's advancing unless it gets a Second Reading today. The Second Reading will transform it.
	Why do I say that there is no chance that the Government will pursue the Bill's intent with vigour? I shall explain why. I do not doubt that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister—and, indeed, every member of the Treasury Bench—recognises that the law needs to be addressed at some stage. But they have no intention of doing that yet. Other hon. Members have said today that surely the current monarch is not opposed to the Bill, and I imagine that in principle she is not. Somebody else raised the issue of whether other countries whose Head of State is the Queen would object, and of course they would not.
	However, the matter will not be as simple as that unless the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor demonstrate real political will and enthusiasm. Frankly, their track record on the matter has not been very good. For the record, and to buttress my point—I hope that the Lord Chancellor will seek to prove me wrong—I should say that after the Labour Government were elected, I asked for action on a small, archaic area of discrimination. It prevented somebody ordained in the Catholic Church who had became laicised from being elected to the House of Commons. In canon law and United Kingdom law, a Catholic priest is always a Catholic priest—once a priest, always a priest. However, the person would have stepped down from those offices. I wanted to lift the impediment that prevented such a person from being elected to the House of Commons. I asked the Government to do that at the earliest legislative opportunity, and the reply was no. My party then selected a man who had been a Roman Catholic priest to be the candidate in Greenock and Port Glasgow. A Bill was then swiftly enacted to enable that, so we did the right thing for the wrong reasons. However, the tale demonstrates the deep conservatism of Government Ministers, including the Lord Chancellor, on these issues.
	Those listening carefully to what the Prime Minister and the Deputy Leader of the House said on Radio 4 this morning will have noticed that they betrayed the fact that they had not really researched the issue. Their terminology was all wrong. They said that they would have to talk to members of the Commonwealth. Actually, that is constitutionally incorrect; they need to talk with and get agreement from states whose Head of State is the Queen and that are by coincidence members of the Commonwealth. The overwhelming majority of the about 56 countries in the Commonwealth are republics. The issue could very well be dealt with at the margins of the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference—that occasion could be a good vehicle, but the issue is not within the competence of the Commonwealth Heads of State as such. I relate that story because it demonstrates that the Prime Minister had not been adequately briefed or had not understood the point at issue. Of course, he needs to understand that to begin to address the matter.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is the architect of the Bill, but even his approach is slightly flawed. I wish to amend the Bill in Committee. Clause 4(2) is about consulting the Commonwealth; again I say that consultation should take place not with the Commonwealth, but with countries where the Queen is Head of State. Furthermore, the matter is not one of consultation; there has to be simultaneous agreement. The Bill would need to be amended to say that it would come into force after there had been agreement with the Governments and legislatures where the Queen is Head of State. Why do I say that? We have to understand the Statute of Westminster 1931, which was a benchmark in our constitutional development and then that of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and what was then known as the Irish Free State. In its preamble, the Statute of Westminster says that
	"united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members...that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom".
	In my view, the Bill should proceed on to the British statute book, amended so that it empowers us to trigger the changes once there is agreement with the legislatures and Governments of these other countries.
	This is not an academic issue. One has to understand the events of December 1936, when—I have read the debates many times—Archibald Sinclair, Clement Attlee and Stanley Baldwin managed to get through this House, under the provisions of the Statute of Westminster, the abdication Act of 1936, which was a one-clause Act that permitted Edward VIII to abdicate, by an instrument, on the following day. It was done under the Statute of Westminster because the then Dominion Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa exercised their rights under the Statute of Westminster by asking what was then called the Imperial Parliament to enact on their behalf, as they saw a need for dispatch in this matter. The abdication Act was passed here, but then triggered the law in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. That could not happen today because the constitutions of Canada and Australia, in particular, have moved on, and that would prevent them from derogating to this place a law altering their Head of State legislation. I expect that it would also be politically offensive and unacceptable in all those other states. There needs to be simultaneous agreement, which I think would be forthcoming.
	I referred to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, but another Dominion was involved—what was then called the Irish Free State. It was not a republic, but part of the realms of Edward VIII. The then Prime Minister of the Irish Free State, Eamon de Valera, said, "Hang on a minute. You're not going to pass at Westminster legislation affecting my country's Head of State—I'll pass my own and exercise my right under the provisions of the Statute of Westminster." Then he introduced into the Parliament of the Irish Free State a law ending the title and office of Governor-General—the representative of the King—and creating the office of President of the Irish Free State. He did not move to a republic, but he altered by some degree the constitutional arrangements. There are two significant elements to that, the first of which is an interesting anomaly: Edward VIII was King of Ireland for one day longer than he was King of the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Furthermore, under the precedent created by Eamon de Valera, as we consulted all the 16 other states about changing the law, that would raise domestically in their jurisdictions issues relating to moving to a republic, or if not going that far—I intervened on the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon about this earlier—the question of the Head of State not having to be the follower of a particular faith, because many people, especially in Australia and Canada, would find that offensive. It would open up a can of worms.
	I believe that, if I may use the phrase, the palace is not unsympathetic to the issue raised by the Bill, but it is concerned that it will open a Pandora's box, not just here in the United Kingdom—perhaps least of all here—but in all the other countries—

Stephen Pound: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Not for the first time, the House has been educated by his erudition, and I am reluctant to stand in the way of his unstoppable flow. Before he moves off his point about the putative Duchess of Edinburgh, he talks about a possible third son who may have been King and is praying in aid, as all people would, that the advantage of the present monarch being Her Majesty is so great that no one would wish to oppose that. Is he not missing the rather obvious point that we do not know who that third son would have been? He could have been as good as her. Is it not more important that we speak of the principle rather than the personalities?

Andrew MacKinlay: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in my defence, the long title of the Bill demonstrably relates to succession, so it is possible to deal with abdication, and I see some acknowledgment of the fact that I am on firm ground. Secondly, I want to make abundantly clear my unreserved respect for the present monarch. It would be difficult for someone to have a higher approval rating than hers for the reasons that I have set out. She is demonstrably outstanding. Had there been a younger brother, we would have been deprived of those extraordinary talents. I apologise if that point is discourteous, but the reverse was my intention.

Andrew MacKinlay: I accept that because, if the Bill of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, which I support, was given a fair wind by the Government, a number of things would follow from it. There would need to be a mechanism to talk to the Prime Ministers of other countries. And this is not new ground. I asked John Major and Tony Blair, during a number of Parliaments, whether there was some dialogue—and if not, whether it could be initiated—between the Heads of Government in those states where the Queen was Head of State, and both of them said no. That is why I come back to my frustration on these matters. No doubt the Justice Secretary will feel aggrieved, but the track record on this matter is poor. I give him full marks on the constitutional changes that bear his fingerprints, but legislators either treat this sensitive area with some levity—

Edward Leigh: It is a great pleasure to be here today to support the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) in introducing this Bill. It has been a long time coming, and we have waited a long time for a complete day on the matter on the Floor of the House of Commons, as opposed to a 10-minute Bill, with a real chance of getting legislation on to the statute book. I do not think that I need to declare a personal interest in this matter, even though my son, Benedict, is 640th in line to the throne. I think that I shall be fairly safe—we will not manage to kill off the preceding 639.
	It is said that Catholics are easy-going people and, in fact, one of our bishops was quoted yesterday as saying that this issue is not high up the list of our priorities, and that we know that, in reality, there is no discrimination in this country. However, the matter is still lurking. I remember that when I took my Gainsborough seat, my wonderful predecessor said two things to me. First, he said, "Edward, I am handing you Gainsborough, a virgin bailiwick. Don't spoil it by doing anything." The second thing that he said was, "I understand you're Catholic—don't mention that to anybody around here." I am sure he was joking.
	We are very easy-going, and there is an element of a pre-emptive cringe in the Catholic population in this country after hundreds of years of lying low. We do not want to make a big fuss about succession, but just imagine if the Bill of Rights contained the same provisions against Jews or Muslims as against Catholics. There was a Statute of Jewry that expelled Jewish people from this country in 1290—an outrageous measure long since got rid of—but imagine if we had the sort of language about Jews or Muslims that is in the Bill of Rights about Catholics. It states:
	"And whereas it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realm."
	That is in the Bill of Rights—it is part of our law. Imagine if there were something in the Bill of Rights making a similar provision against Jewish or Muslim people. There would be outrage, and it would not last five minutes. It would be got rid of. The Government would not say, "Oh, it all rather complex, and we've got to consult the Commonwealth, and nobody really cares about it very much either." The provision is discriminatory, it is on the statute book and it should be got rid of straight away.

Edward Leigh: Yes, we all know that it was about the politics of then and about James II, and there is no possible justification for leaving the provision on the statute book. I do not need to labour the point, but the situation is ludicrous, particularly in the Royal Marriages Act 1772. The cardinal archbishop was at a meeting in the House yesterday and put it quite well, although in a rather politically incorrect way. He said how absurd it was that Prince William could marry anybody that he liked, a Muslim or a Hottentot—perhaps a bit unfair to Hottentots, whoever they are—but not a Roman Catholic, which is ridiculous. As I have said before, Prince William could have a civil partnership with a Roman Catholic man if he wanted. Out of the great galaxy of eligible young women in the whole of Europe and the world, the only person he cannot marry is a Roman Catholic woman. That discriminates not just against us but, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) said, against Prince William. He might want to marry a Roman Catholic woman.
	It is said to us, "Oh, this is not going to apply", but it has applied. For instance, in 1978 Prince Michael of Kent married a Catholic and was automatically barred from the succession to the throne, so it applies at this moment. It is not a theoretical matter, and the hon. Gentleman read out a list of people who have been disbarred. Would it not be ludicrous if Prince William were barred from the throne because he chose to fall in love with a Roman Catholic? Of course, the Government hint that they would then immediately rush through legislation, but why do that? It would make us look absurd. Why not do it now?

Edward Leigh: No, we should not, and that is a point that I made earlier. Muslim and Jewish people are quite rightly very sensitive about discrimination, and we have to make the point that if there were a similar provision on the statute book affecting them, it would not last five minutes. The situation is tolerated only because the 4 million Catholic people in this country are so easy-going that they are almost horizontal, as I am for much of the time about many political issues. We do not make a fuss about it, but the Government should not prey on our good and easy-going nature and leave the provision permanently on the statute book.
	If anybody thinks that all this is ancient history, they might not know that the last Catholic relief legislation was passed only in 1927, in the lifetime of many of our parents. Before then, if a Jesuit or a Dominican priest entered the country, they had to register with the Home Office as a suspected disloyal person who might subvert the constitution. We should not think that this is somehow ancient history, but it goes right into the modern age.

Evan Harris: We cannot presume the Queen's opinion or state what we think it might be, but although she cannot comment—she has been very good about that—there is no need for it to be a problem. The Government are, through Parliament, in charge of the matter. I do not believe that there is any question about its being an embarrassment to Her Majesty.

Edward Leigh: In reality, it would not be an embarrassment. There has not been a royal veto since Queen Anne in 1708—and there would be no veto. We all know that the argument is ridiculous. The Commonwealth argument does not, therefore, hold.
	What about complexity? We are constantly told about it, but it is absurd. Professor Blackburn, who is an expert, has not yet been quoted. His comments are included in our parliamentary brief from the Library, and they are worth reading. He says that
	"this complication would hardly bother the government's legislative draftsmen, known as 'parliamentary counsel'. As a constitutional measure, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, transforming the office of Lord Chancellor and position of the Law Lords, was far more complex. The annual Finance Acts, dealing with the inter-woven minutiae of mind-boggling taxation details, are arguably much worse in terms of detail and comprehension."
	The complexity argument is therefore a red herring.
	One wants to know what the Government are playing at. I put the question to Tony Blair at the Liaison Committee when he was Prime Minister. He almost laughed in my face and said that he had got far more important things to do. First, the Government use that argument, then they claim that it does not make any difference and then they use the complexity argument, which, we all know, is nonsense. They introduce tens of thousands of lines of legislation every year, without difficulty. We also know that the Commonwealth argument does not stand up.
	Is the final objection the position of the Church of England? Let me make it clear that, although I do not trust the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon in every respect, I do not believe that he—I certainly do not—wants to affect the position of the established Church. To disestablish the Church would send the wrong message. We already have the problem of secularisation. The fact that we have an established Church should be a matter of great pride to us.

James McGovern: I am happy to profess that I am a Roman Catholic. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows of John F. Kennedy's comment, "My religion may come from Rome, but my politics come from home." Is he aware that Glasgow Rangers dropped Sir Alex Ferguson because he married a Catholic? Glasgow Rangers has now seen fit to adopt a non-sectarian policy, why cannot the monarchy do the same?

Edward Leigh: I take that point, but I will not comment on Celtic and Rangers in case I put my foot in it.
	The Bill will not affect the position of the established Church. I am very ecumenical. I sit on the Cathedral Council of Lincoln cathedral, I think that the Anglican Church does a superb job and I want it to remain the established Church. I want the monarch to remain the head of the established Church as Supreme Head of the Church of England. I have no difficulty with that. However, colleagues have put it to me darkly, "Well, of course it's discriminatory, Edward, but there's a bit of problem here, because if one of them marries a Catholic, their children will inevitably become Catholics." That is a red herring, too. My children are not baptised Catholic. My wife is Russian Orthodox and my children were therefore baptised Russian Orthodox. Although I referred to my son Benedict earlier, I think he would be entitled to inherit the throne because he was not baptised a "papist." The notion that all Catholics insist on their children being brought up Catholic is wrong—that is no longer part of our rules. Of course, as with any other religion, one should use one's best endeavours to bring them up in the faith, but if that is not possible, so be it. If such a measure were passed, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in England could make it plain that, if the heir to the throne married a Catholic, it would be relaxed about the children being brought up as Anglicans. There is no difficulty with that.

Evan Harris: I totally accept the hon. Gentleman's position and he was clear with me from the outset. However, it is worth pointing out that the comedian David Mitchell made a joke about a Bill. I argued that it would diminish discrimination in the country, which he took to mean discrimination in the monarchy. He said that to try to make the monarchy less discriminatory by such a measure would be like throwing a pebble into the Grand Canyon to make it less of a grand canyon, because the nature of the monarchy is that it discriminates by choosing a particular family. The Bill is not about the monarchy; it is about the message that we send to the people in the country, her subjects and citizens.

Stephen Pound: I would like first to refer to some of the interventions that have been made, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern). There is one self-denying ordinance to which we should all subscribe, which is that we shall not start talking about Celtic and Rangers. However, I seem to remember that when Mo Johnston went from Celtic to a team in France and then on to Rangers, there was a great deal of graffiti in Glasgow that said, "Bless me father, for I have signed." I hope that we have moved on from that.
	It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). The thought of a Russian Orthodox heir to the throne would probably excite some interest in former President Putin's inner coterie—it may be part of some diabolical plot, although I am not aware of that. I should declare that my quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that, whereas the hon. Gentleman's son Benedict is in somewhat close proximity to the throne, my son Pelham is about 63,000,480th in line to the throne, but I love him all the same.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). He is a man with whom I do not always agree, but occasionally he has that marvellous quality of stepping where others fear to tread. There are times when he espouses causes that make me fear that the full moon has exerted too powerful a tug upon him. However, in this case he has done a signal service. The way he has constructed and presented the Bill, as well as the generous honour—not to mention the meaty backhander—that he offered my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, has taken us into an area that is long overdue for discussion.
	In considering the matter, we must take into account two rather interesting factors. First, virtually everybody says that the measure is a long overdue corrective and that the current position is indefensible. However, it is only when one goes to the next step and says, "Well, why haven't we corrected it? Why are we defending it?" that one comes to the meat of the matter. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) posited one of the most logical and conservative suggestions when he said that it would be inappropriate to the change the system, because it had worked fairly well as it was and because things were far too complicated.
	That is the pure conservative argument, which was sadly shared by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor when he said:
	"The Government have always stood firmly against discrimination in all its forms, including against Roman Catholics, and we will continue to do so,"
	but that
	"To bring about changes to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth. We are examining this complex area although there are no immediate plans to legislate."—[ Official Report, 12 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 513W.]
	So the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has somehow advanced no immediate plans, despite a widespread discussion in the press and the media today. The hon. Member for Gainsborough prayed in aid the professor of constitutional law at University college London, Robert Blackburn, and his point is exactly right. A House that can see a Finance Bill through could certainly see this Bill through.
	If there is no real argument against the Bill, if the complexity argument is pretty thoroughly destroyed and if there is no real objection under the Statute of Westminster 1931, is there is a theological argument against the Bill? Is there perhaps some subliminal fear, still today, that Roman Catholics are fit to be ruled, but are not fit to be rulers? Is there still some visceral fear that there is an inherent disloyalty in Roman Catholics? My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West rightly quoted former President Kennedy. I would not remotely mention myself in the same breath, but I, too, received postcards on being elected saying that I would listen to the Vatican before I would listen to Northolt.

Evan Harris: If the hon. Gentleman saw my postbag, which I would be happy to share with him, as I proposed the Bill, he would see that there is still, in a very small number of people, that visceral, irrational and unjustified fear. That is one of the reasons we should pass the Bill, because doing so is the sort of thing that we need to do to neutralise that fear, rather than wait for it to flow away. The whole point of the Bill is to tackle that head on, because part of the Bill is about tackling prejudice wherever it exists, as well as eliminating unjustified discrimination wherever it exists.

Stephen Pound: It is an interesting argument, although I am not entirely sure that it appeals to me. Apparently, in Spain there is a requirement that members of the royal family be members of a particular house, and that house is predominantly Roman Catholic.
	The right hon. Member for North Antrim also referred to the Williamite revolution settlement that has served the nation so well, although I would perhaps resile from uncritically approving the Williamite revolution settlement. He then said, in effect, that were the succession aspects of Kevin McNamara's Bill to be passed, they would cause chaos and crises in the great houses of Europe. No other conversation would be had, from the grand duchies and to Luxembourg—I think that even San Marino was prayed in aid.
	The number of people supporting the right hon. Gentleman in the Lobby that day was 32. The number of people in the other Lobby, opposing him and supporting Kevin McNamara, was 170. Incidentally, it is a great shame, reading the list of the Ayes, to see that some 30 or 40 former right hon. and hon. Members who voted are no longer in this House, for various reasons—some of them, sadly, are in the House of Lords.
	A great discussion took place on that occasion. One fundamental point that we returned to over and over again—often in coded language, although sometimes in less than coded language—was whether a Roman Catholic owes fealty, duty or loyalty to the Holy Father or to the head of our country, the monarch, Her Majesty. Like, I would hope, every other loyal Roman Catholic, there would be no question about that for me. I recognise, respect and have massive admiration for Her Majesty as the leader of our country. There is absolutely no question about that, yet the point was raised over and over again, as if we were some devious, black-clad, neo-Jesuitical fifth column that was infiltrating the body politic, waiting for the very moment when we could leap from behind the arras and say, "Queen Mary is back! Light the bonfires!"

Andrew Slaughter: I am listening intently to my hon. Friend and neighbour, and I do not wish to drop him in it, but while I was looking up this matter on the BBC website today, the following story came up:
	"Stephen Pound MP, one of several Labour backbenchers who support the aims of Republic, told the BBC News website"
	that whereas
	"the Queen had 'played a blinder'...'When the present Queen, God bless her, dies I think the Royal Family will implode in on itself anyway'".
	There seem to be some intimations of the gunpowder plot.

Stephen Pound: Fortunately—I associate myself with the words of the hon. Member for Gainsborough—we have apologised for the gunpowder plot. People must realise that the origins of the gunpowder plot were not in the Roman Catholic Church in Rome or in this country, but that it was all the fault of the war in the Netherlands at that time. Guido Fawkes would have been called a freedom fighter in other times.
	It would be impossible for me to claim the normal defence for what I said all those years ago, which is that I was but a callow youth—I was certainly shallow. Perhaps I have moved on a bit, and perhaps the discussion has, too.
	There have been so many occasions in our nation's history when the fear of Catholicism has manifested itself not just in genteel debate and discussion but in blood and death on the streets. We will not go back beyond the papal bull of 1570, which is many ways the starting point, but let us think of the popish plot, as it was then called. Titus Oates, a figure who is often not mentioned in history—his name is well known, even if he is not often discussed in detail—was born in 1649, the year of the execution of Charles I, or Charles the Martyr. As we know, Titus Oates was responsible for a double perjury that led to the execution of some 15 Catholics, including the Archbishop of Armagh.
	Oates was a man, incidentally, with a rather extraordinary past. He started off as an Anglican priest and, after an unfortunate incident involving accusations of sodomy in Hastings, he was appointed as chaplain to the good ship Adventurer, where sadly there was a further accusation of sodomy—

Stephen Pound: I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's sedentary intervention.
	Let me bring the matter more up to date. John Henry Newman, Cardinal Newman, who might soon be canonised, famously stood trial in this country in the Achilli trial. The judge directed the jury not to believe a word that the then Father Newman said, on grounds that, as a Roman Catholic priest, he was incapable of telling the truth. The jury followed the direction of the learned judge and found the then Father Newman guilty. A very large fine was imposed, which was then paid by public subscription, which enabled him to buy the Birmingham oratory. That is another story.
	I am trying to say that there is still a visceral fear. I have talked about the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. In our own century, there have been such examples. One remembers Pastor Jack Glass, who is no longer with us. He was a man of the most appallingly inflammatory views and was utterly convinced that there was a papist conspiracy to somehow gnaw away at the foundations of our democracy and our monarchy. Above all, if there is one thing that loyal Catholics can say today, it is that by seeking to correct this injustice and to rebalance the world in which we live, we are not in any way seeking to criticise Her Majesty or any institution of the monarchy.
	The various debates on this subject have been educational. For me, one of the most interesting was on 14 January 2005, when the noble Lord Dubs introduced his Succession to the Crown Bill to the upper House. The extraordinary thing about that Bill, which was described by Lord Dubs as a very modest Bill, was that it was not supported by the then Lord Chancellor, as has been mentioned, but was supported by the then Bishop of Worcester, who is no longer in post and who said that there would be no problem whatsoever with the supreme governor of the Church of England not being a communicant Anglican. There was something of a spat between various bishops, including on the rather knotty question of why the wives of bishops who sat in the House of Lords were not recognised in their roles and whether there should be some title for them. A long discussion was held on whether such a Bill should be a private Member's Bill or a Bill dealt with in Government time.
	Interestingly, however, no real argument was sustained in that place. The Earl of Mar and Kellie—I do not think that he had been present in 1701, but certainly one of his kinsmen had—explained precisely the background to the legislation, why it was as it was, why it was no longer applicable or relevant, and why it no longer had a purpose in a modern democracy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) may have trespassed on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by imagining for the benefit of the House that he knew the intentions of Her Royal Majesty. I would not begin to do so, but I do find it a shame that we are not able to get some indication from the royal house of its attitude in this matter. In the absence of such an indication, however, I think that we can give the information regarding the emotions of this House in the matter. I do not think there can be anyone in the House today who does not feel that this is both the time and the place for change.

Evan Harris: According to the House of Commons Library paper, during the debate on Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare's Succession to the Crown Bill, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Williams, told the House that the Queen had herself been consulted about the provisions, and that on the gender issue she had indicated no objection. He said:
	"I should make it clear straight away that before reaching a view the Government of course consulted the Queen. Her Majesty had no objection to the Government's view that in determining the line of succession to the throne daughters and sons should be treated in the same way. There can be no real reason for not giving equal treatment to men and women in this respect."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 27 February 1998; Vol. 586, c. 916.]
	We have heard what Prince Charles himself has said, on the record, about wanting to be the defender of faith, not the faith. That suggests a relatively relaxed attitude to some of the issues.

Stephen Pound: I make absolutely no secret of that. I am certainly not trying to talk the Bill out, and in view of my hon. Friend's strictures, I will shortly bring my comments to a conclusion.
	If Members read the report of the House of Lords debate back in January 2005, they will see that virtually every question that a person could ask about the relevance of this Bill is answered, from the theological to the practical to the constitutional to the legal. All are answered. So we find ourselves left with an extraordinary conundrum: why on earth we do not have a piece of amended legislation with which we could all be comfortable? Why on earth do we still have a residual piece of legislation that reflects the bigotry of a bygone age, and why is it still the case today, although Roman Catholics may be as relaxed as the hon. Member for Gainsborough suggested—I think he used the word "horizontal" to describe some of them—that many of us are deeply and bitterly aggrieved by what we still see as a profoundly blatant form of discrimination?
	I have no particular desire for my young daughter to marry any of the royal princes, and I do think believe that she has any matching desire, but the fact remains that for Roman Catholics to be told not only that they cannot become the monarch of this country but that they will negate the right of any legitimate heir to the throne to become the monarch is a double discrimination that is totally unacceptable. Surely, if there is one thing that we can all say with one voice, it is that it is utterly impossible to justify such a situation in this day and age.
	That is not the sole aim of the Bill, however. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon also refers to primogeniture. During the debate in the House of Lords, a concept was mentioned that was entirely new to me: something called ultimogeniture. I had never heard of it, but apparently it is the principle whereby the younger son remains at home and looks after the parents. Eventually he, rather than the elder son, inherits the title. According to this principle, the elder sons and daughters go out and make a fortune. What happens if another son is born I do not know. The fact remains, however, that as we heard from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, the present principle of primogeniture has given us the system whereby Princess Anne is 10th in the line of succession when, according to my calculation, she would otherwise be fourth. That is still a long way above the hon. Member for Gainsborough's son Benedict, but it is certainly far, far closer to the throne. Can we really justify—on the basis of the fact that we have a marvellous monarch, widely admired and widely respected, who happens to be female—a system that prevents the Crown from passing to the eldest child, regardless of whether that child was a boy or a girl? That cannot be defended, and it is another reason why I support the Bill.
	Some Members may feel that I have been, if not chippy, then a bit over-sensitive about the issue of Roman Catholics and their place in our civic life. Especially in this building, which was designed by a Roman Catholic who was opposed by many people in this country for being a Roman Catholic, we have to recognise that Catholic emancipation is a fairly recent issue, whose relevant dates are not just 1828 and 1832, but, as we have heard, as recent as this century. It is an issue for us today and, as has been widely said, this country will not be a good place for any of us to live in until it is a good place for all of us to live in.
	I do not say that the disbarment of Roman Catholics from the line of succession somehow impacts so negatively on Roman Catholicism in this country that we cannot thrive, as we do, and we cannot expand, as we do, and we cannot express the confidence in our faith that we do, but it is still there as a mark and indication that, no matter how good we may be or how loyal we may be, and no matter how much we may now fight for and serve our country, and no matter how much we may sit here as Members of the legislature of our country, there is one key area from which we are barred, and that happens to be the very apex of the constitution that we serve and in whose Parliament we sit. That is the point that riles; that niggles; and that affects even the relaxed, laidback Roman Catholics of this country, and it is a point that worries me deeply.
	I recall the accusation of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, and I realise that a number of other Members wish to speak, so although I could say more, I will draw my remarks to a close by repeating what I said at the beginning: Catholics are good enough to be ruled; we should be good enough to be rulers. I wish the Bill a fair wind and Godspeed. It is overdue, it is timely and it is the right Bill for this House to consider.

Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on his success with the Bill, and I would also like to declare an interest: I do not have a child who is anywhere in the line of royal succession, but I am the Member for North-West Norfolk and one of my leading residents—my leading resident—is Her Majesty, who has a home at Sandringham.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he was very pleased that Her Majesty had consented to place her prerogative and interest at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of this Bill, but I urge him not to get too carried away because Erskine May says:
	"The government's usual practice is to advise the granting of consent even to bills of which it disapproves. The understanding is that the grant of consent does not imply approval by the Crown or its advisers, but only that the Crown does not intend that, for lack of its consent, Parliament should be debarred from debating such provisions. It is possible for consent to be granted by the Monarch but for Royal Assent to be withheld. The consent of the Monarch does not necessarily reflect the Monarch's own personal view."
	Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to get too carried away when he says—as he has done twice—that Her Majesty consents to the Bill. Obviously, what is needed is a long period of consultation.
	The hon. Gentleman must be quite frustrated and angry with Her Majesty's Government—but, on the other hand, he might not be. He might be quite chuffed that his Bill has received such an extraordinary amount of publicity over the last 24 hours. I welcome the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice to his place and apologise for the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), but we were told earlier this week that today's business would be handled by the very capable Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik). However, something has happened in the meantime. The Prime Minister's visit to south America has gone badly wrong; there has also been horrendous news regarding the shortfall in the Government's recent gilt sale; and now there is every likelihood that next week's G20 summit could end up as an embarrassing shambles. Therefore, I suggest that some spotty, swivel-eyed spin doctor in No. 10—in the bunker—has come up with a brainwave to provide some diversionary headlines and his great idea was to hijack the good doctor's Bill. He has certainly succeeded, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) pointed out, there are headlines in every single paper: "Revolution at the Palace" in the  Daily Mail, and "Royals could marry Catholics" in  The Daily Telegraph.
	The Government have therefore certainly succeeded in diverting headlines, but what a way to run a Government. Surely we could have had a proper statement from the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State. After all, he was in the House earlier this week making a pretty lightweight statement on the Green Paper, "Rights and Responsibilities". I cannot, in fact, remember whether it was a Green Paper or a White Paper, but it was certainly not a big deal, so he could easily have used that occasion to make a statement on this matter. Such a serious issue should not be dealt with by the Government with a knee-jerk response on the back of an envelope, and I almost feel for the Lord Chancellor, who has been treated by the Government as a bit of a poodle.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who made an interesting speech and is, without doubt, an expert on this subject. In the world of realpolitik, it would be inconceivable that the Government of Bermuda, the Government of the Falkland Islands or the Government of Gibraltar would not be properly consulted—that would be a gross discourtesy. If we are serious about looking after those overseas territories and cherishing the role that they play, we should certainly consult them properly and with due consideration.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough pointed out, it is ridiculous that the heir to the throne can marry a Hindu, a Buddhist or a Muslim with impunity but there is an historical bar on any heir to the throne marrying a Catholic. That provision should not stay on the statute book and the time has come to amend the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the other legislation that goes with it. I also feel that the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which, after all, is the Act requiring the descendents of George I to seek the consent of the monarch before marrying, is outmoded and out of date. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) pointed out, it was the cause of the serious problems in 1936, because it precipitated the requirement for a separate one-clause Act—His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936—which disapplied the 1772 Act to the heirs of King Edward VIII; he then became Duke of Windsor. It is logical to repeal that Act, and we are very content for that to happen.
	Clause 1 allows for female succession. I share what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said about the Princess Royal; she is a tireless worker, who sets a truly remarkable example to the rest of the royal family, and we should be incredibly proud of her. However, I do not think that the issue is quite as simple as he pointed out. There would be other—perhaps unintended—consequences that we need to consider.
	For example, consider the UK peerage. Hon. Members may sneer and look aghast, but I remind them that there are still 92 Members of the House of Lords who are hereditary peers, as a consequence of the Cranborne compromise. The Government said that those peers will stay there until stage two of House of Lords reform. Well, we have been waiting 10 years for stage two and there is no sign of it on the horizon. It is unlikely to happen before the next election, so there is every possibility that those 92 peers will remain in the House of Lords for the time being.
	Some UK peerages were created with a special female remainder. Some were for one generation, probably because the new peer only had daughters, but some of the Scottish peerages have a special female remainder in perpetuity. Then we have baronetcies, which by statute are always inherited by the eldest son. Clause 1 makes sense, and we support the spirit of it, but many consequences that would flow from it need to be considered very carefully.
	Clause 1 obviously has no immediate relevance, but it could be relevant when Prince William or Prince Harry get married. It is therefore important that the monarch and her family are properly consulted on the contents of clause 1, in the context of a much broader process.

Henry Bellingham: I had a ready reply, but I will take your strictures into account, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and resist giving the House the details.
	If we remove one of the building blocks haphazardly, all sorts of unexpected consequences could result. In any case, the Church of England is in no fit state to take on this debate, because morale is low, congregations are falling, churches are crumbling, and a lot of money needs to be raised to pay for the repair and maintenance of cathedrals. One of the reasons why Church morale is low is the way in which leadership is distinctly lacking.

Evan Harris: Indeed, and he therefore has every right to talk it down, but I urge him to consider that the Church would grasp with both hands the opportunity afforded by the Bill to deal with what would happen if Prince William were to marry a Catholic, given the problems that that would cause in the future if there were a marriage to a divorcee or even a civil partnership. The Church of England should grasp the idea of expanding the range of acceptable spouses or partners for someone who is to be their supreme ruler. I do not see why that should be any bar to the Church of England accepting this Bill.

Henry Bellingham: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I said that it is a good thing that the Bill would not precipitate the disestablishment of the Church.
	I wish the bishops in this country would stand up and put a stronger case for Anglicanism. All too often, they take the easy way out and, rather than stand up for hard-pressed individuals who are being persecuted by the state, they walk by on the other side. As for speaking up for basic Christian beliefs, all too often, all we hear is a deafening silence. It seems to me that too many bishops are overcome by political correctness and a feeling of guilt about saying anything that might remotely cause offence to minority religions, and they are obsessed with multiculturalism.
	There are honourable exceptions, however—two quite remarkable bishops. I pay tribute to the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, and to the Bishop of Rochester, Bishop Nazir-Ali. Those two great men have consistently stood up and publicly supported individuals who are being persecuted by the public sector.

Henry Bellingham: I shall certainly go out and buy a copy with great alacrity, because the Bishop of Rochester is a remarkable man.
	To conclude my remarks on this part of the Bill, given the Church of England's present state, it requires new leadership and a new sense of purpose. With those things, I suggest it will be able to meet the vital challenges that will come before us in the future.
	There is much to be recommended in the Bill and there is no question but that there are powerful arguments in its favour, but I have to ask the House: is a private Member's Bill the best vehicle to bring about a fundamental constitutional reform? There has been a lot of talk about how the Bill is only a few clauses long, but it deals with fundamental constitutional issues. I think what is needed is for the Government to publish a Green Paper setting out all the arguments in favour and explaining exactly how the comprehensive consultation process will work. We need to know how the Commonwealth countries and overseas territories will be brought into the loop, and how the monarch herself will be properly consulted.
	My final concern is about priorities. Our country faces a really appalling recession. Some economists say that it is the worst for a generation. Other economists say that it is the worst since the 1930s. Last week, one economist said that it could be the worst recession ever. Our constituents face a torrid time in which unemployment, house repossessions, small business failures and violent crime go up. Debt levels are at an all-time high. The Government should be using all their energy, time and resources to combat the current crisis. I have every confidence that in a year's time, my party will have to sort out those challenges. In the meantime, this Government have to put their energy and effort into sorting out the current crisis. I do not want them to be distracted by arcane constitutional issues, however important they might be.
	That is why I urge the Government really to concentrate on trying to sort out the problems facing this country, and to get their priorities right. We will support them in this debate in future, and in the consultation process. We want to be involved on a consensual basis, and we obviously want resolution of the issues. However, I submit to the House that there are other priorities at the moment. I am quite certain that Her Majesty would expect nothing less.

Andrew Slaughter: I came to the debate this morning with no settled intention of speaking, but having heard the eloquent testimony on the radio this morning of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and the Deputy Leader of the House, I found myself in a genuine dilemma. I thought that I would, very unfashionably, come to listen to the debate, as we all have the liberty to do. I will make some hopefully brief comments on that. I am still not entirely resolved whether to support the Bill for the following reasons. It is clear that some of the statute that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon wishes to repeal is a piece of pure prejudice against women and, particularly, Roman Catholics.

Andrew Slaughter: My hon. Friend puts his case passionately, but the Cardinal is entitled to his opinion as well.

Andrew Slaughter: I agree with my hon. Friend that there has been a difference in reaction from different parts of different Churches and from different countries within the United Kingdom over time. Nevertheless, I have received only one piece of correspondence on the matter in the four years that I have been a Member of Parliament. It is not the subject of café society debate in Shepherd's Bush or in Ealing.
	I hear what hon. Members say who feel strongly about the matter, but in the passion of their arguments they have underestimated the difficulty of unravelling the constitution. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replies, I expect he will deal with the issue in more detail, so I shall not spend a great deal of time on it. It is not simply a Government excuse or a way of doing nothing.
	I shall read the House a quotation from the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who said:
	"Other countries where the Queen is head of state will be affected by these proposals, and lifting the prohibition on heirs to the throne from marrying Catholics is not straightforward as it raises broader issues relating to the established Church.
	The government should publish a consultation document so that these matters can be debated properly and the Anglican Church and others can be consulted."

Stephen Pound: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is honourable and he is my friend. I know little of the café society of Shepherd's Bush, but I am not a woman, therefore I cannot feel the pain that women feel about the existing legislation. He is not a Roman Catholic and, with respect, I do not think he understands the pain that is felt. The fact that it is very often expressed as a bruised acquiescence rather than a surging anger does not make it any less real.

Andrew Slaughter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It has been made by other hon. Members and hon. Friends. I began my remarks by saying clearly that the matter needs to be addressed at some point. The fact that there is near unanimity on that speaks eloquently. Also—and the matter was leading the news this morning—the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated it is the subject of ongoing discussions between the royal family, his office and the authorities means that this will happen—

Andrew Slaughter: Well I do, yes. However, my period ends with the restoration. In a spirit of full disclosure, I should say that I prefer the settlement of 1649 to that of 1688. My cards are now on the table. I do not wish to spend a great deal of time on the history, and I would be stopped if I did, but it is important, and for this reason: it shows the distance that we have covered and the journey that we have made over the past three centuries and more.
	I shall read out a brief paragraph about the Act of Settlement from the "Oxford History of England". Discussing the passage of the Act that we now seek to repeal or amend, it says:
	"Despite the hopes of Jacobites and republicans, settling the succession upon the House of Hanover encountered remarkably little public opposition; indeed, in the Commons only one MP spoke against it. Further, Catholics were once again explicitly debarred from the throne. The Bill passed both Houses without division, and as in 1689 urgency was again the order of the day. Nothing could more clearly show the continued commitment of parliamentarians to the Protestant succession and their willingness to break with strict hereditary rights. As in 1689, a foreign, Protestant King was deemed preferable to a Catholic one: 'it is better to have a prince from Germany than one from France.' It was not, however, altogether such plain sailing."
	It goes on to mention that as a consequence of the passage of the Act of Settlement, and given that the legislature covered only England, Ireland and Wales at that time, Scotland, which still had its own independent legislature, resisted the matter
	"as yet another example of English presumption, arrogance indeed imperialism. The call of Scottish independence was soon heard loud and clear."
	So some things do not change all that much over the years. The net effect of that rebellion in Edinburgh was the Act of Union in 1707 and the loss of Scottish political independence, a decisive moment in the creation of a unitary state in Britain.

Andrew Slaughter: I am all in favour of replacing the national anthem with "Jerusalem".
	I am not as concerned about the number of statutes that would be amended or repealed as about their centrality. We are talking about the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Act of Union. Without proper constitutional consideration, we trespass on those at our peril. Despite the excellent steps that the Government have taken on constitutional reform, it has not been without difficulty—one need only look at the problems that have arisen in ridding the House of Lords of hereditary peers.

David Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what specific ramifications there may be of taking out the words that my hon. Friend referred to?

Andrew Slaughter: I will come to that in a moment, but let my finish my point. Another provision in the Act of Settlement—that the monarch must not leave the country without the permission of Parliament—has been repealed, without any consequences. Last time the monarch declared war on Parliament, they did so from Nottingham—so that may not resolve the problem at hand. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is possible to take such steps; I am merely urging caution because the Bill would amend a number of fundamental Acts that are important to the constitutional integrity of this country.

Andrew MacKinlay: Just before my hon. Friend entered this House, we amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights of 1689 to accommodate the then hon. Member for Tatton in order that he could pursue litigation in the courts that would otherwise have been subject to article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is nonsense to suggest that we cannot tweak these things, because we have done so very recently in that respect.

Andrew Slaughter: If my hon. Friend has been listening, he will know that I am not saying that such things are impossible. This House can repeal whatever it wishes. I am urging caution because one may end up with unintended consequences if one takes such a piecemeal approach.
	Actually, has this Bill not effectively already achieved its objective? The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), rather uncharitably, referred to the Prime Minister's trip to South America. The hon. Gentleman may wish to reconsider that, and reflect on the fact that the Prime Minister's spending of so much time among Catholic Heads of State has brought this matter to the fore. I saw the Prime Minister being given what I can only describe as a cuddle by President Lula of Brazil in the newspaper this morning.

Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend is making the entirely valid point that there may be unintended consequences and an unanticipated read-across. Heaven forfend that we have to grapple with the Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711. Surely we employ some of the greatest brains in the nation in the form of parliamentary counsel, and surely they if no other are more than capable of advising and assisting on the eventual form of a Bill such as this in order to avoid any disastrous unintended consequence.

Andrew Slaughter: Indeed, in the café society of Shepherd's Bush, where I can often be found.
	I do not know whether the Bill's promoter has read the previous debates on the matter, including that in the other place when Lord Dubs introduced such a measure. If the hon. Gentleman has done so, he will know that, unlike in this Chamber, some rather trenchant objections were made, including by the Bishop of Winchester, who claimed that it would separate the state from the Church of England and the Christian faith. I will not develop the bishop's argument because I do not agree with it, but it is nevertheless interesting that the prelate could advance that argument despite being a substantial advocate of closer co-operation between the Anglican and Catholic Churches.
	I mentioned the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who is not in her place, but she was quoted in the  National Catholic Register last month as saying that the Bill is
	"an attempt to impose secularization on the country... And it's a direct attack on the Church of England. I won't be supporting it, and neither will a lot of other Catholic MPs I know."
	An observation was made that the opposition may have more to with the Bill's promoter than its content. However, I will not put words into the right hon. Lady's mouth.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon misquoted David Mitchell when he referred to him earlier. I shall correct the quote for the record. Perhaps the article in question, which appeared in  The Observer in January, when the Bill was presented, is slightly less than serious. Mr. Mitchell said:
	"The royal family, while nominally our betters, are in fact our captives and an interesting and profitable focus for media attention. It's as unfair as life; the royals can't escape and if you want to become royal, you basically can't. It's a more or less functional arrangement that no one would ever have had the wit to devise deliberately.
	Which is why Liberal Democrat MP"—
	he names the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon—
	"Evan Harris's attempt to fiddle with it is so enervating. He wants to change the Act of Settlement whereby Catholics can't marry the sovereign and end the discrimination against female heirs to the throne. He thinks this will make the monarchy more fair. I suppose it will, in the same way that throwing some bread into the Grand Canyon will make it more a sandwich."
	That is the quote.

Andrew Slaughter: I get closer with each of the hon. Gentleman's interventions. Who knows—in a few short minutes, I may be completely on board. I am closer than I was half an hour ago.
	However, Mr. Mitchell is entitled to his view. He has a column in  The Observer and therefore a greater platform than us—I doubt whether more than half a dozen people are listening to us today. Mr. Mitchell's point is:
	"The monarchy is overwhelmingly, gloriously, intentionally unfair—that's the point. The defining unfairness is that you have to be a member of that family to be king or queen; fringe unfairnesses like their not being able to marry Catholics or men having priority in the line of succession are irrelevant in that context. And what's so fair about primogeniture, which Harris is not planning to touch, or the sovereign having to be Anglican, which is also apparently fine? He wants to spend parliamentary time, mid-credit crunch, on a law aimed primarily at helping Princesses Anne and Michael of Kent. When will people get the message? If you want a fair system, have a republic, elect a president and live with"—
	he makes a disparaging comment about the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), which I will not repeat—
	"giving a speech every Christmas Day afternoon, bitter in the knowledge that you asked for it. Otherwise, we should stick with what we've got, rather than trying to tinker. No abdicating, no skipping Charles, no changing weird ancient laws. We get who we get because we'd rather live with the inadequacies of a random ancient structure than the inadequacies of one designed by"
	the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
	I suspect that that view, although light hearted, is one that many people in this country would accept, because they tend to accept the constitution, warts and all. I say that without in any way defending the scurrilous language in the various Acts; indeed, I wish it to be amended properly in due course.

Alan Reid: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument and would like to try to help him support the Bill. The quotation that he used earlier was a bit random, but the point about the Bill is that it seeks to remove something that is not random. The Act of Settlement writes into our constitution that the monarch cannot marry a Catholic. That is not random; it is deliberately written in. Although only a small number of people may be directly affected, the important thing is the message that the Bill would send to the country today, which is that discrimination against Catholics has no part in modern society.

Andrew Slaughter: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention because it allows me to say again what an enormous fan I am of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. The reason why I read that passage was simply to show that bigotry is not dead in this country. I hope that the editor-in-chief of  The Catholic Herald would not miss the irony that although he is attacking the Bill for purely bigoted reasons—that is, because it comes from the hon. Gentleman—he would no doubt support the measures, even if, as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has said, they are not high up in the shopping list.

David Howarth: It is one of the unwritten rules of Fridays that the more one supports a Bill the less one should say. I shall therefore speak briefly, because I strongly support the Bill.
	The only thing that I shall say about the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) is that it seemed to combine, in a very unstable way, the argument that this measure should be opposed because it might block the way for more radical reform later and the argument that it sets a dangerous precedent and might actually lead to that reform itself, thus producing an overall argument of breathtaking incoherence.
	The main point of the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) was that he felt that the Government should do more about the economy, rather than thinking about a measure of this sort. In fact, experience seems to show that the more the Government do, the worse the economic crisis becomes, so I think that, rather than doing any more to make things worse, it would be better for them to concentrate on measures of this kind.
	The Bill contains three proposals, all of which I strongly support. The first is to end sex discrimination in the order of succession; the second is to end the disabilities that are attached to members of the royal family who marry Catholics; and the third is entirely to repeal the absurd Royal Marriages Act 1772. No substantive reasons have been given for not doing any of those things. The sex discrimination in the order of succession makes no sense whatsoever, given that we abolished feudalism three or four centuries ago, and if there is a lesson of history to be learned from the monarchs that we have had in recent centuries, it is that, on average, the public seem to be served much better by our queens than by our kings.
	The only objection to the measure that has been advanced is a procedural one to do with the idea that the 15 Commonwealth member states that share our Head of State might block it. I do not see how that could happen. Many of the countries concerned are far more progressive than we are on the matter of sex equality. That is historically the case as well: I believe that New Zealand was the first country to give women the vote, so it hardly seems likely that it would block the measure.
	As for the Pandora's box idea that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), the notion that opponents of the monarchy in the Australian Parliament would stand up to block its assent to the measure on the grounds that they did not want to see equality for women is too bizarre to contemplate. First, they will not do it. Secondly, they probably cannot do it, because the Statute of Westminster probably does not have the legal force that has been claimed for it. It is a treaty obligation, but it is not a domestic legal obligation in this country.
	There are various ways in which other countries could respond. They could say "You get on with it: we do not care what you do." They could also say "You get on with it: we will agree with what you do." Those varieties of response are dealt with in my hon. Friend's Bill, which states simply that Ministers should consult with the relevant countries and then decide what to do on the basis of what they discover. I therefore see no reason not to support the part of the Bill that removes discrimination in the order of succession.

Alan Reid: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the important messages that the Bill sends out to the whole country is that discrimination both on the grounds of sex and against Catholics is not permissible in modern society? Therefore, it would not only affect the Monarchy directly.

David Howarth: The idea behind the Bill is that those principles of non-discrimination are universal and that they do not apply only to particular parts of our society.
	My hon. Friend mentions the discrimination against Catholics. There is absolutely no reason for that to continue. Given that Earl Conrad Russell used to be of the belief that our own party—the Whig party and the Liberal party—started as a consequence of the exclusion crisis of 1679 and therefore was founded as a party aiming at excluding James II from the throne, I should, perhaps, join in the apologies that we have heard today about the gunpowder plot and other events, and perhaps even apologise for Titus Oates as well.
	The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) made a serious point—perhaps the only serious point in his speech. In the 16th and 17th centuries Protestantism became part of the national identity, especially of England. That led to extreme forms of discrimination against Catholics. He is right to say that that was originally based largely on ideas of foreign threat—of threat from the French, the Spanish and so forth. It has taken us a long time to get back from the effects of that part of our history. It has had a profound effect on the way people in this country see themselves. Catholic emancipation, which started in the early 19th century, has still not finished, although it should be mentioned that the bringing about of the Catholic emancipation Act required the efforts of perhaps the greatest popular leader the world has ever seen, to paraphrase Gladstone: Daniel O'Connell.
	The massive changes that were brought about in the 19th century are still not yet quite complete. The hon. Member for Ealing, North mentioned examples of discrimination against Catholics in the 20th century that are still going on. It has to be said that there is a residual feeling in some Europhobic circles—perhaps I should mention Mr. Ashley Mote, who was originally elected to the European Parliament as a member of the UK Independence party—that somehow the whole European Union is a Popish plot. This is happening now, in our day and age. There are still residual feelings of anti-Catholicism and we should recognise that, and take the step that this Bill proposes precisely because it challenges that.
	The only argument made against that step, apart from the Commonwealth argument which I do not think works, is the notion that it will somehow lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England. I should be open about the fact that my party supports the disestablishment of the Church of England, but this Bill does not get anywhere near achieving that, or even starting to do so. First, it is only about the spouses of monarchs, and not the monarchs themselves, and even if it were about the monarchs themselves, it is not clear that that is a problem because there would be other ways around the supreme governorship issue, including the idea that another senior member of the Royal family might take over the supreme governorship for the period in question. I do not think this is an issue at all; it is simply a red herring.
	The third proposal is the repeal of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, an Act that is plainly ridiculous, and has been so for a long time. It was passed in first place only because of the misbehaviour of the brothers of George III, not to mention the later misbehaviour of his son, George IV. It is clear that we need to move on. It is not entirely clear whether this even applies now, because arguably both Queen Victoria and our own current Queen married into a foreign family and that is effectively the end of the Act itself. This is therefore a nonsensical historical survival, and we should simply repeal it.
	I have no more to say other than that I thoroughly approve of the Bill. I hope that the House will pass it today, and I hope that, rather than the Government using it as an excuse to do nothing, they will actually do something.

Alan Reid: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on his Bill, which has my complete support. It seeks to remove discrimination on the grounds of sex and religion, because those discriminations are relics of the past and should have no place in modern society. Effectively what these ancient laws still say is that women and Catholics are second-class citizens, and I want all references to sex and religious discrimination removed from the constitution, as does he. That is probably beyond the scope of a private Member's Bill, so what he has included in this Bill is something that can realistically be achieved.
	One of the few arguments being put against the Bill today is that it is all too complex and difficult, but he has focused on aspects of the constitution that can be quickly and easily amended. I do not think that the complexity argument has any weight in respect of the discriminations that he seeks to remove. Clause 1 would remove a sex discrimination provision that is clearly absurd; the Queen has had a distinguished reign of nearly 60 years, and there have been many distinguished Queens in the past. It is absurd to say that removing sex discrimination from the monarchy would, in any way, have knock-on effects or cause damage to the constitution.
	Clause 2 would remove religious discrimination and thus allow the monarch to marry a Catholic. The present constitution is, in this respect, patently absurd—the monarch or any heir to the throne can marry anyone of any religion or of none, other than a Catholic. That provision is clearly a relic of the 17th century and it should be removed. The message that it sends out is that a Catholic is a lesser being than someone of any other religion or someone of no religion, and that appalling sectarian message should have no place in modern society.
	This Government, to their credit, have passed a great deal of legislation that removes discrimination from the country and implements a great deal of constitutional reform. They have set up a Parliament in Scotland, and Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland, and they have reformed the voting system for the European Parliament. They have removed discrimination in many walks of life, and I urge them to go one step further by removing the sectarian legislation that dates from the 17th and 18th centuries. It is obvious that the Government do not believe in discriminating against Catholics—that is self-evident—so why should they not simply demonstrate that today by giving this Bill a Second Reading and removing 300 years of discrimination against Catholics?
	Step by step, over the past 200 years, the anti-Catholic legislation of the 17th century has been removed from our constitution. The only part remaining is discrimination against Catholics' succeeding to the throne and against heirs to the throne marrying Catholics. The Government obviously do not believe in that discrimination. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has put forward a simple Bill that does not involve any complex issues such as the supreme governorship of the Church of England. This simple measure would send out an important signal to everyone in this country. I urge the Government to support the Bill today and give it a Second Reading.

Philip Davies: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), who clearly feels strongly about this issue. He put his case very well, and with typical verve. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on introducing this Bill; whatever happens today, he has clearly achieved an awful lot in a short time, given the headline in today's  Daily Mail and the Government's seizing on his Bill as a way of diverting attention from all the other difficulties in which the Prime Minister finds himself at the moment. I am sure that he did not design it with the aim of saving the Prime Minister's skin, but it has taken us a fair way down the road to doing so.
	The debate has been fascinating and informative. I have learned a lot, and it has been equally entertaining. We have heard some of the finest speakers in the House today. I do not wish to single out anybody in particular, but the hon. Members for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) are two of our finest orators, and it was a pleasure to witness their performances today. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) also made a good speech. Indeed, it has been very interesting to watch the unholy alliance—if I may call it that—between my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. It would be fair to say that, on 99.9 per cent. of Bills, they vehemently disagree with each other, but they have found common cause on this matter. It was also interesting to watch my hon. Friend struggle with the tragic conflict of loyalty between his understandable desire to end discrimination against Catholics and his longstanding support for tradition, in the face of this Bill, which is a challenge on both those fronts.
	In many respects, this Bill is self-evidently sensible. I spend much of my time in this place trying to argue against gender discrimination, especially positive discrimination. It was music to my ears to hear people's opposition to gender discrimination. It has been said that we should take as read that nobody should believe in any form of gender discrimination. My enthusiasm and delight at hearing that were slightly tempered by the thought that many of those people who were saying that we should take it as read that we do not believe in gender discrimination are those who support all-women shortlists for parliamentary selection. If only we could take it as read that we are against gender discrimination, I would be far happier.
	The Secretary of State said earlier that he has a proud record of standing against all forms of discrimination, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that the Government had passed many measures to tackle discrimination in many walks of life. However, the Government's track record in ending gender discrimination is not perfect, and if they really did believe in it they would end all-women shortlists.

Philip Davies: That is self-evidently true. There are a lot of ifs in British history, and I am sure that you do not want me to explore every one of them, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are where we are, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) said. Had we been starting from scratch, we probably would not have chosen to start from here, but here is where we are.
	I often quote my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) at such times. He always says, in words that resonate with me, that, to a conservative, if it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. Today's argument, to me, is about whether it is necessary to change. To make the proposed change, the case for it has to be set out and we have to be wholly persuaded that it is needed. To answer the question put by the hon. Member for Thurrock, I am not yet convinced of the need for the Bill. I understand the motivations behind it, but I am not sure that we have explored fully all its implications.
	I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon say that he supports the monarchy and that the Bill is in no way intended to threaten the monarchy. His point appears to be that it is entirely wrong that the eldest child, because of the accident of having been born female, should not be allowed to become England's monarch. That is a perfectly logical point, but from it, perfectly logically, flows the argument that a person should not be able to become king or queen just because of the accident of their birth into the royal family. The thrust of his argument therefore undermines the monarchy as an institution.

Philip Davies: I am sure that our friends in  Hansard will be able to correct us on this point, but I fear that the hon. Gentleman misheard what I said. I did say that all unnecessary change was bad. I thank him, too, for his incredibly generous remarks, of which I am certainly not worthy, either.
	The issue about Catholics particularly affects my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who made his point very well. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who also pointed out particularly well how ridiculous the bar on Catholics is. I perfectly understand the arguments. However, I am not wholly sure whether the change is entirely necessary. I am not sure how many cases there have been in which the provision has needed to be invoked, or in which there was a problem. I think that such cases are few and far between. I am not sure that it is at the top of the issues raised by the man on the Clapham omnibus at the moment. I certainly share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham): surely the Government have far better things to be doing with their time, particularly at the moment, than to go down that route.
	The arguments for the repeal of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 are perfectly logical. Vernon Bogdanor described it as the most absurd piece of legislation on the statute book. We have all heard about how it originated; it was, in effect, passed in a fit of pique, and that is hardly how legislation should be passed. In the 2005 debate, Lord Falconer, arguing why it should be repealed, made the point that the longer the current provisions remain on the statute book, the more couples there will be who are covered by the Act. I perfectly understand all those arguments.
	I certainly have a problem with the vehicle that is being used to make the changes—a private Member's Bill. I do not think that that is the right vehicle to take the matters forward. Despite what has been said, we are talking about a major constitutional matter. The Government should introduce the changes themselves, if they feel so inclined, and that should really be done with consent and common support. When considering whether to support the Bill today, one has to ask whether the measures should be introduced through a private Member's Bill. I do not believe that they should be. In answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, if there were a Division on the Bill, I would not vote for it. I would either abstain or vote against it, because I do not think that it is the right vehicle for such a constitutional change.

Simon Hughes: I have one last very short point. If we look back over the past 100 years, we see that many initiatives of a constitutional nature have been taken up by Back Benchers, and were then picked up by Governments and legislated for, such as devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Private Members' Bills are often the way to get things going. That use of private Members' Bills should be encouraged; the Government often do not move otherwise.

Philip Davies: I totally accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker so, however tempted I am, I will not go down the path that my hon. Friend is trying to lead me down.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point and he makes it, typically, very well. My contention is that a constitutional change such as that proposed by the Bill is best delivered by the Government, rather than through a private Member's Bill.
	We have heard today the view that the change is mere tinkering and that it could all be done via a telephone call or in five minutes flat. I am not sure I accept that. The Bill deals with major constitutional stuff and we would be disingenuous to pretend that that could all be unravelled in five minutes flat.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and responding to the debate—I was not aware that he was going to do that. Which of the Prime Minister's points move the Government's position in any way from their position a year ago, two years ago or indeed 12 years ago? I understand that the Government always believed that the discrimination that the Bill would remove was wrong, that the issues were serious and that they affected the Commonwealth. What is the exact change of position that the Prime Minister's remarks denote?

Jack Straw: The priority that the Prime Minister said that the Government would give the matter. No one in the Chamber, let alone outside, would suggest that the matter should have overwhelming priority. The Government are preoccupied not only with the economy, as we are at good times as well as at difficult times, such as the current times, but with bread-and-butter issues that affect the day-to-day lives of our constituents. However, we are considering an important constitutional issue and it is important that our constitution, which determines not only the balance of power, but many of the values that inform how our society should operate, is brought up to date. If there is clear discrimination, we should deal with that.
	Let me just say that I was not intending to be here; I would not have been but for the results of the hon. Gentleman's assiduity—I have already paid him some compliments about that. Sometimes people in his position are fortunate and something gels in the minds of, say, the journalists. The fact that he has managed to achieve a considerable degree of prominence for the Bill is the reason why I am here. I make no pretence about that. This has been a really interesting debate and it has been good for me—it is the first such debate that I have sat through in all the past 12 years. I happen to have governmental responsibility for the issue, and the debate has also informed my thinking.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that quite a considerable part of relations with other states is confidential. Let me put it this way: we have not been unaware of the views of the Heads of Government of relevant countries, but I will deal with the Statute of Westminster in a moment.
	I want to put on record two things, the first of which is this Government's commitment to the elimination of discrimination. That is something about which I and everybody on the Labour Benches feel passionately. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon applauded this Government's work over the past 12 years in removing discrimination in one area after another. He said, however, that he thought that perhaps the period when Roy Jenkins was Home Secretary in the '60s was a period that was even more radical, because of the inherent difficulty of dealing with some of those issues at the time. I am not going to have a competition over the benefits of one Labour Government as against those of another Labour Government. It is, however, a fact that only Labour Governments have ever introduced any legislation to root out discrimination in any area of our public life.
	Some of us remember the Smethwick election in 1964. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), who now sits for that former constituency, knows of the searing pain that was caused by the words used in that election by the Conservative candidate, who later became the Member of Parliament, which were so disgusting that I shall not repeat them in the House. At the time, those on the Conservative Benches said that there was no need to legislate, because people should be free to express whatever views they wanted. I remember at that time seeing notices in windows on the sides of lodging houses in London saying: "No blacks, no Irish, no dogs". That was very straightforward discrimination. Those desperate insults and worse were allowed in the interests of freedom of speech.

Jack Straw: I have already said that no one could argue with the principle—and no one has done so today, not even the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who entertained us by declaring that he is against discrimination, especially positive discrimination, which is a means of ending discrimination. He also managed to get his apparent wish for us to leave the European Union into the debate. Please do not worry, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I shall now immediately return to the subject of the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) talked about complexity. The complexity is to do with not the drafting of the measures—that will be lengthy and detailed—but with their potential implications and inadvertent consequences. My hon. Friend said we could have a disaster if we do not address this issue. I do not think that is likely. I accept that we need to resolve this, but we can do so steadily, given who is actually in the line of succession and the fact that, at most, we might face the very distant eventuality of a crisis.
	I apologise to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for having heard only the opening part of his speech, but I have been given a good note of what he said.  [Interruption.] I am sure it was a very good speech—the note is certainly very good, and I shall read the speech in  Hansard tomorrow. I understand that he said that the Roman Catholic Church requirement for families to be brought up as Catholic in marriages between someone of the Catholic faith and someone not of that denomination had been much relaxed in recent decades.  [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock says, "Totally." That is one necessary consideration, but there are others, and although none of them are insuperable, they must be thought through. It is still the case, for instance, that those who are in the Catholic Church are told that they are not in communion with the Anglican Church—although I have seen that. The reverse is also the case: according to the Catholic Church, it is not possible for me as an Anglican to take holy communion in a Catholic church. That would also need to be sorted out.
	In 1972, there was a change in the arrangements inside the Church of England: the Church of England's admission to holy communion measures allow baptised persons who are communicant members of other Churches, and who are of good standing in their own Church, to be admitted to holy communion in Church of England churches. That means, to my certain witness, that Methodists and Congregationalists, and Church of Scotland and Baptist members, can take holy communion, and there is no direct prohibition within the Church of England of members of the Roman Church taking holy communion, but that is not directly reciprocated. I understand why; it is a matter of profound history for both Churches, but that is something we would have to talk about.

Andrew MacKinlay: With the greatest respect, I think that, on the details, the Secretary of State is wrong. I do not want to labour the House on this matter, but I know of Church of England vicars who have been given communion in a Roman Catholic church and Catholic Church members who have received communion in the Church of England. That is a matter of fact, and it is happening all the time. The question, however, is this: what has this got to do with the Bill? With the greatest respect, the question of intercommunication or lack of it, and of what might be anyone's belief about communion, has got nothing at all to do with the Bill, and I challenge the Secretary of State to tell us how it has.

Jack Straw: I was going to come to that.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and others say that this Bill is not intended to disturb the position of the sovereign—the King or the Queen—as head, or supreme governor, of the Church, in ecclesiastical matters as well as in temporal matters. I fully accept that that is the hon. Gentleman's intention in moving his Bill. The law at present does not prohibit someone who is in communion with the Church of England but who is not a confirmed Anglican from being head of the Church, because they would then be in communion with the Church. The difficulty—this is one of the complexities of what he proposes—is that he has not thought through sufficiently the potential consequences of his proposals on the sovereign's position as head of the Church, and this matter needs to be thought about very carefully. The monarch is the supreme governor of the Church of England, and Catholics, under the laws of their Church—this is the point—cannot enter into communion with the Church of England. Thus, there would be the anomalous position where if there were a supreme governor, a monarch succeeding to the throne, who was a member of the Roman Catholic Church —[Interruption.] I understand the point, but we need to think things through a little, because the Bill proposes to allow members of the Catholic Church to be in the line of succession and one of the issues that we must—

Jack Straw: I say to the hon. Gentleman that one of the many values of today's debate has been to clarify that and to clarify the intention, because the process of debate today has to produce a better consensus on what we could change and what we must leave untouched than was there before.
	May I move on to deal, in the time available to me, with the issue of gender discrimination? The discrimination against members of the Roman Catholic Church is, as I think we would all accept, the most offensive part of the current arrangements. There is an issue about quite how far the two things impact on each other, but because the Bill is bound to have some impact on and consequences for the established Church, it needs to be thought through in some detail. So far as the issue of gender discrimination is concerned, it is a much more straightforward matter to deal with, and that is the position of the Government. Interestingly, however, the change in the rule would have less practical effect—in terms of number, although not for the individuals involved—than might be imagined. In the current line of succession, five out of the first 12 are women. If we change the rules to achieve equality between the sexes, as proposed—or absolute primogeniture, as it is called—five out of the first 12 would still be women, exactly the same number.

Evan Harris: Another benefit of the Bill would be that Peter Phillips could marry someone with whom he fell in love without that person feeling that they needed to change their religion in order to retain his place in the succession. One wonders how many other people's private lives or religious allegiances have been affected by the fact that this change has still not yet been made.
	I know that the Secretary of State has only eight more minutes to occupy, but I would like to ask him—for the third time now and with due respect for his sincerity—what tangible proposals the Government have to implement the higher priority that no less a person than the Prime Minister, taking time out of a busy trip, made clear that he had given this issue?

Jack Straw: I do not want to give a precise time scale this afternoon, least of all one that, for other reasons, might not be fulfilled. However, it is an issue that we will pursue, including with Commonwealth Governments.

Jack Straw: I shall certainly ensure that soundings are taken of Commonwealth Heads of Government and talk to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the outcome of today's debate, which has been very interesting and informative, not least to me. I genuinely mean that. Normally when one spends five hours in this Chamber, one learns something—in fact, I have never spent five minutes in this Chamber without learning something—and I have done so today.
	However, let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. Almost every Commonwealth country, and certainly the older ones—two being Canada and Australia, which are parts of the realm—have faced precisely the same tensions between people of the Anglican faith or the Protestant faiths and people of the Catholic faith. Famously, in Australia, where the establishment of the country was Anglican, there were huge tensions with those of Irish heritage. In Canada, the tension continues between those of British heritage and those of French heritage, and there is the potential for conflict—
	 The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).
	 Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 16 October.

Jon Cruddas: It is fair to say that the subject of this short debate is quite different from that of the debate that preceded it. Having said that, we Catholics have always had quite an interest in housing policy, so there is a certain continuity. This afternoon I want to talk about the operation of the housing revenue account, and the so-called negative subsidy system, with regard to its effect on my borough, the London borough of Barking and Dagenham.
	The housing subsidy system is based on a complex set of rules and assumptions that the Government make about a council's need to spend, about the Government's national rent-setting policy, and about a council's debt position. The councils that have historically managed their finances well, and are debt-free, such as my authority in east London, are assumed to be in less need, and therefore have to contribute to the housing subsidy pot. The Government run their national system as a redistributive pool, so they pay housing subsidy to those they assume to be in greatest need, and require others, who are in less need, to pay negative subsidy back to the Government for subsequent redistribution.
	When the housing revenue account was first set up, no council had to pay money to the Government, but now 156 of the 206 housing authorities pay negative subsidy to the Treasury. This year, the Treasury has taken £194 million from council tenants. I would argue that that is a tax on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our communities. Not only is that deeply unfair in principle, but it actively prevents councils from investing in, improving and repairing their housing stock.
	The allocation formula creates perverse incentives. For example, if a council pays off its housing debt, reduces crime on its estates or reduces vandalism of its stock, it loses some of its subsidy. That situation will get worse over the next few years. The amount of money that central Government will take out of the system is planned to increase to some £300 million in the next financial year. Obviously, I realise that the revised determination of rents will probably reduce that figure dramatically, but I simply maintain the point that the system is structured in a way that produces those surpluses.
	I turn now to the situation in our borough, Barking and Dagenham, which is a deprived area of east London. The council manages some 20,000 homes. It used to manage 40,000. Our council paid in some £17 million to Government negative subsidy in 2007-08. That is equivalent to nearly £900 per property per year. Next year, 2009-10, we will pay some £22 million in negative subsidy back to the centre. Through their rent payments our tenants are effectively subsidising council tenants in other parts of the country. This additional tax on our tenants operates at the same time as we have an investment gap of about £100 million, looking to 2011.
	Retaining the millions that we pay in negative subsidy would enable us to invest in our existing stock and new affordable housing. The situation has been raised endlessly with the Government over the past few years. We petitioned the Prime Minister himself in 2008. I remember standing in Downing street with the signatures of 244 of my constituents. There is huge local support for the issue. We had another petition with 1,580 signatures locally run in our Tax on Tenants campaign.
	There are a number of interlinked housing policy issues which cross-relate to the issue of the negative housing subsidy. For example, in 2004 there was a tenants survey in connection with the Decent Homes option appraisal. It resulted in a 25 per cent. response rate among our tenants, of which 86 per cent. stated a desire to remain with the council. As an authority we are delivering the Government's agenda, developing mixed-tenure communities and focusing on town centre and estate renewal. We are at the forefront of the development of local housing companies. Ours will be incorporated in July, with a start on site in August for a scheme of 470 units. We have plans for some 6,000 units over the next 12 years, with a minimum of 50 per cent. designated as affordable.
	Because of negative subsidy, the housing revenue account position is critical for the future of council housing in our borough. In little more than two years, the housing revenue account is likely to go into deficit, potentially forcing the council into balloting for stock transfer, despite the clearly stated wishes of our tenants and council representatives.
	We welcome the recent announcements from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing on new council house building activity. We have been campaigning for that for many years, but unless the housing revenue account subsidy is resolved, no effective new council housing will be built. That is the situation in other towns and cities across the country as well, although I would argue that we are on the front line because of the scale of the negative subsidy. That could undermine the basis from which we will try to confront the deep structural weaknesses in the supply of social housing as the country's housing crisis develops.
	Even if we instituted a system of prudential borrowing which created the level playing field for which many of us have argued for many years to allow new build council units, the £22 million deficit means that we could not build the numbers that we so desperately need. Our request is that the London borough of Barking and Dagenham be allowed to exit the housing revenue account as soon as possible. The housing finance review is due to report to the Housing Minister "later in the year", even though that was originally planned for April. We need to be able to exit on terms that leave a viable council housing service in the borough which can afford to borrow to develop its homes and our estates.
	I shall make a number of points about the operation of the housing revenue account in our borough. It seems perverse that a national subsidy system which is meant to reward well run and prudent councils should have such a negative effect on Barking and Dagenham's ability to meet Decent Homes standards and provide new homes for its current and future tenants. A borough that is the seventh most deprived in London and has the fastest-changing demographic profile in the country should simply not be paying £22 million to the Government from the rent paid by its own tenants. Each week, the average tenant in Barking and Dagenham pays £24 for which they receive no service for that portion of their rent.
	The subsidy paid to the Department for Communities and Local Government excludes about £13 million that the Government allow the council to keep as major repairs allowance, or MRA. That sum is intended to meet the year-on-year costs of decent homes for elements, such as repairs, baths, kitchens and rewiring, that become due for renewal in-year. The sum itself is not sufficient to allow for the renewal of those items and, worse still, the Government require the council to spend it as cash rather than put the money into borrowing.
	If the council put £13 million into borrowing, it would be able to meet all its Decent Homes obligations for some time to come. It could make substantial investments in improving the locality's estates. Tenants in Barking and Dagenham have made it clear in successive surveys that they want the council to remain their landlord, yet the Government's subsidy system is rapidly driving the council out of the housing business. That is not what local people want. They want the council to invest the money that they pay in rent to provide improvements to their living conditions, and we all agree that those are needed.
	The London borough of Barking and Dagenham has put forward a couple of proposals to the Department for Communities and Local Government over the years about how the council could leave the subsidy system. Neither the tenants nor the council want to transfer stock to a registered social landlord, whether an existing or newly created one. However, if the council did so, the Government would allow it out of the subsidy system and contribute many millions towards the cost of meeting the decent homes standard. If that large amount of money can be provided to the council in a large-scale voluntary transfer, why is it not possible to invest the money through the democratically elected council whose tenants so clearly wish that to happen?
	In a recent interview for  Inside Housing, the Minister for Housing said that her real priority is to ensure the provision of new homes, and we all totally agree with that. However, it is simply not enough. There are two points about our own housing stock. First, we cannot neglect people in existing communities who have existing housing needs. To condemn 20,000 households in our borough—to make inadequate investment in their homes, futures and the area in which they live—is wrong. Secondly, if Barking and Dagenham were allowed to retain the negative subsidy of some £22 million and invest its MRA in the way best suited to local people's needs, it could easily begin to build new council housing—and the Prime Minister himself has said that he wants to encourage local authorities to do that.
	Barking and Dagenham is a well run and prudent council. Its comprehensive performance assessment, or CPA, rating is excellent and it is improving strongly. Its CPA housing score is 4 and it has Housing Corporation accreditation to manage property built with public money. Its tenants and local people generally want the council to remain their landlord. They want investment in their homes and new homes to be built for their sons and daughters.
	The money to do those things exists locally, but the housing subsidy regime effectively prevents that from happening. The review of the subsidy system, which has been going on for some time, has yet to produce any results. The six pilots, conducted nationally to see whether it is possible for housing authorities to exit the housing revenue account, have so far come to nothing. No one can be confident that there will be any positive outcome from this exercise. As I said earlier, the review of the subsidy system, due to report to Ministers soon, has been delayed. In the  Inside Housing article to which I referred earlier, the Minister said that she was not concerned about the time scale of the review. We should be.
	I am sure that Barking and Dagenham will continue to work with the Department for Communities and Local Government and put forward models through which it might leave the housing revenue account without a traditional stock transfer. However, there must be a degree of political will if the proposals are to succeed. The Department must show real leadership and commitment to the reform of the housing revenue account. It must give councils such as mine in Barking and Dagenham, which have strong local support and the ability to deliver, the chance to deliver.
	One other factor cannot be ignored in this debate. As I have said, increasing social housing—particularly providing new family homes—is a top political priority for our council. Speaking as a local MP, I can say that housing is the outstanding issue in my caseload, and locally, it is the outstanding issue of public policy in our community. We are also on the front line in the fight against the far right—the British National party. The BNP has ruthlessly sought to exploit the issue of working-class families being unable to gain access to good-quality social housing. It has ruthlessly racialised this debate and linked it to demographic changes in the borough. Increasing the supply of social housing is therefore absolutely critical in maintaining community cohesion locally. This debate on the negative subsidy is not an abstract debate—it is central to the day-to-day cohesion of our borough and critical in enabling us to deal with the frustrations involved in access to social housing and with the rise in the appeal of the extreme far right.
	Negative subsidy is not just a problem for Barking and Dagenham—it is growing across the country. Portsmouth is losing £6 million, Waverley is losing 49p in every pound of rental income, and Sutton is projected to lose over £10 million in the next financial year. The problem is getting worse every year. Unless we sort it out, our broader, more laudable aims of building more homes will not be realised. It is estimated that some 5 million people will soon be in need of social housing, and the number is continuing to rise. With the credit crunch, the economic crisis becomes a social crisis; we face 75,000 repossessions this year alone.
	The private sector will not build the units required. The business model of the private sector has effectively collapsed. Starts this year will be way under 100,000 units; the Government's stated objective of 240,000 extra units a year is a very distant objective. Where will those units come from? We have to rebuild a mixed economy in the supply of housing. In order to do that, we must allow councils to build more social units. In Barking and Dagenham, we have a council desperate to build those units, we have thousands of residents desperate for more social housing, and we have the land to build them on—but we also have a system of negative subsidy that acts as a road block to our providing these new homes. All we are asking is for the Government to help us to do what we want to do and dismantle the system of negative subsidy.

Sadiq Khan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) on securing this debate. It is an honour for me to respond at the Dispatch Box to somebody whom I admired long before I entered the House, and to address the very important matter that he has raised. He has demonstrated in the preceding 15 minutes why he is a champion for the people of Barking and Dagenham in particular.
	In relation to the specific problems that exist in Barking and Dagenham, it is worth pointing out that the permanent secretary for the Department for Communities and Local Government recently wrote to the chief executive suggesting a meeting to discuss some of the serious issues that my hon. Friend raised. I ask him to speak to the chief executive to ensure that that offer is taken up. It is always easy to make offers on behalf of ministerial colleagues, but I am positive that the Minister for Housing will also be happy to meet him to discuss these important issues.
	As regards building new council housing, my hon. Friend is right to say that the Department is consulting on new freedoms that should help councils to build more council homes. That would mean, for example, councils keeping all the rental incomes from new homes that they build for capital receipts if those homes were sold in future under, for example, the right-to-buy scheme. We are also inviting councils to bid for social housing grant, which is capital subsidy for new housing. Previously, local authorities have not been able to get that funding; my hon. Friend will know about the unfairness of the skew in that regard. He rightly said that the consultation closes in April and that we hope to implement these changes in May or June. I invite him, when he speaks to his council, to ask it to start discussing with homes and communities agencies whether they want to be involved in this project.
	I agree with my hon. Friend's comments on the concerns that exist about the major repairs allowance and funding borrowing. We are aware of those concerns. Clarification is required on these issues, and we are considering whether it would be helpful, for example, for the Department to clarify its guidance.
	A lot of the changes that my hon. Friend mentioned came about because of the pressure that he put on the Department, and because of his raising issues not simply outside No. 10 Downing street, but in constructive conversations and meetings, and lobbying of Ministers in my Department and throughout government.
	For those who misunderstand the position, I would like to put on record the context of the housing revenue account subsidy system. It provides a framework for financing the upkeep of council housing stock. Since the 1930s, successive Governments have used a subsidy system to ensure that the country's council housing is maintained, but we have to accept that when we inherited the current system—and my hon. Friend will know this because he played a crucial role in the run-up to this Government's election in 1997 and thereafter—it was clear that action was needed to halt a long-standing and continuing decline of the national stock.
	To put that remark in context, let me say that in 1997, we inherited a £19 billion backlog of repairs and maintenance in council housing stock. In 2001, this Government brought in the decent homes programme, because we want every tenant, including those in Barking and Dagenham, to have a decent place to live, produced to a good standard. In 2001 we brought in the major repairs allowance, which provided a massive injection of £1.5 billion of resources to stop the long-term deterioration of the stock, on top of the £40 billion we had put in to deal with the major works taking place in 3.6 million social homes.
	Why have I spent a few moments talking about that? These matters, together with allowances for management and maintenance, and provision for debt, are resourced through the subsidy system, tenants' rents and, when needed, subsidy from the Government. I understand, as do ministerial colleagues, that some councils, such as Barking and Dagenham, feel that the system does not work for them, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that not all councils can raise enough through their rents to cover their costs. Our policy is that social rents should be affordable and below those of the private market sector. We do not want councils to raise their rents beyond what people can afford. To keep rents affordable, the system redistributes resources from councils that make more in rental income than they spend to those that do not.
	As my hon. Friend will be aware, some councils are unable to raise locally what they need to spend on their council housing stock, and not all of them are inefficient. For some, it is simply a statement of fact that they cannot raise the money locally. The hon. Gentleman referred to 156 local authorities paying negative subsidy, but about 50 local authorities in the country receive a subsidy, so there is a strong rationale for redistribution. It brings a degree of equity between councils, it protects certain tenants from high rent bills and it helps by not adding to the tax burden.
	If after resources have been redistributed there is still an overall funding gap, however, the Exchequer makes up the difference. Since 2001, there has been an overall gap each year, which has been subsidised by around £1.3 billion in total from the Government. It is only from this year, because of how the system works, that that gap has once again turned into a surplus that goes to the Exchequer. I know that that is unpopular in some quarters, but the Treasury has planned to spend £5.9 billion on housing in 2008-09—far more than the £194 million or so going back into the system.
	There is one important caveat, which my hon. Friend mentioned. We are experiencing an unprecedented global downturn. The Minister for Housing announced on 6 March that the national average guideline rent increase would be cut in half from 6.2 per cent. to 3.1 per cent. The upshot is that we do not expect any overall surplus in 2009-10. In deciding to reduce rent increases we wanted to make sure that rental income would be retained locally. In these unusually difficult economic times, it is right that the Government offer real help to council tenants. We will be looking at the position again for 2010-11 when we get a bit closer to the time.
	Surpluses are nothing new. The national account was in overall surplus from the first year for which records exist until 2001, so we are not looking at some new and unfamiliar issue.
	My hon. Friend described the subsidy system as containing structural flaws and fundamental problems, and I accept that there is room for change. We recognise the concerns that are being raised by councils such as Barking and Dagenham, and it is worth pointing out that he has been an advocate of bringing those concerns to the fore, especially at a time of increasing surpluses. Because of those concerns, the DCLG and the Treasury agreed to a fundamental review of council housing finance. I know that he is concerned about the time scale of that review. My understanding it that it is due to report in the spring. I have checked with my officials, and he will be pleased that I can tell him how the civil service defines spring. He will be disappointed to know that it does not begin on Sunday but takes place over a number of weeks and months. The advice that I received from my officials before I rose to speak was that the target is still spring, and I shall endeavour to write to him when I have a specific date that will mean more to residents in his constituency, who are understandably concerned about the fruits of the review.
	We want to ensure that there is a long-term sustainable system for the future that is fair and affordable for councils, tenants and taxpayers. My hon. Friend is right that there appear to be perverse incentives. We do not want good councils such as the one in the community that he has the pleasure of representing, with which he works in close partnership, to be inadvertently punished by a system that appears to be past its sell-by date. The review has been examining in depth the cost of landlord business rents and the use and redistribution of surpluses, and I hope that the report will go some way towards addressing the concerns of his constituents in Barking and Dagenham.
	Whatever system we have in future, it must recognise that the cost of keeping council houses varies across the country. As I have said, there are still more than 50 councils receiving subsidies, and the system needs to be fair to them as well as to councils such as Barking and Dagenham that are in surplus. For now, we have a system intended to provide decent homes at rents well below market levels for some of the most vulnerable in our society. We have a benefits system to provide a safety net for those struggling to pay their rent, but we want to ensure that the system works as well and as fairly as possible for all. That is why in the short term, as I have said, we have halved average guideline rent increases in 2009-10, and why we will re-examine the increases for 2010-11.
	I wish to end by making some constructive points about things that will hopefully benefit my hon. Friend's constituents in the immediate and short-term future. I confirm that the permanent secretary has offered the chief executive of my hon. Friend's council a meeting as soon as possible involving relevant officials from the council and from DCLG. It is important that the council contacts officials at the Homes and Communities Agency to ensure that it can be at the forefront of new builds.
	My hon. Friend is right that one thing that the far right uses to recruit people to its cause and to spread myths in the community is the finite supply of housing and the perceived unfairness of what happens to the receipts from the rents paid by some of the most vulnerable people in our community. I hope that he will continue working with my ministerial colleagues and the Department so that we can ensure that the benefits of those receipts are seen not just in Barking and Dagenham but around the country.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.